After lengthy, sometimes contentious deliberation among themselves and heated input from audience members, the School Committee voted 3 to 2 on Monday night to extend the contract of Superintendent Tom Jefferson to June 30, 2011. Some of the discussion centered around the timing of the renewal, some on the superintendent’s performance itself.
Immediately after Chairman Stu Sklar called the meeting to order, Deborah Skauen-Hinchliffe of Still River Road read a statement demanding that a board member be disqualified from the vote because of a conflict of interest, alleging that because the person had a child on an individualized education plan, preferential treatment had been given by the superintendent.
Later, Leo Blair of East Bare Hill Road expressed concern that audience members say things to members of a committee that they would never say to them otherwise. He called Skauen-Hinchliffe’s comments “crossing the line” and said, “I’m embarrassed. We’re abandoning what makes Harvard, Harvard.”
Sklar began the meeting by reading the motion under consideration for a vote: to extend the superintendent’s contract to June 30, 2011. Board members Keith Cheveralls and Patty Wenger both questioned the need to decide the renewal issue at this time rather than waiting until the contract (which presently expires in June of 2010) is up for renewal on June 30, 2009. Cheveralls expressed wonder at why Jefferson “persists in pursuing this now,” suggesting that supporters of an immediate decision on extension are preying on the committee’s “fears of the unknown.”He accused Sklar of “bullying” when the board chairman said that according to the opinions he had received, for a committee not to extend a contract is tantamount to firing. Further, Cheveralls expressed concern that extending the superintendent’s contract now would set a serious precedent for other negotiations. Wenger commented that she echoed community input in saying that she fails to understand why Jefferson is asking for an extension now.
During open discussion several community members stated their desire to see the School Committee put off its vote. Fred Hinchliffe suggested waiting until the MCAS scores have been published. Wade Holtzman of Bolton Road asked why the board would lock in another year when a number of things might happen—regionalization, for example. Park Lane resident Chris Moeser suggested a vote in April, giving time for Jefferson to further prove himself but allowing the present board to make the decision. BJ Pessia, put it more emotionally: “I beg of you, please, do not extend this contract.”
Maria Kaufman commented that mixed feelings about a superintendent are nothing new, that all parents have different visions. She called attention to Jefferson’s fair process of hiring the new director of special education and to the support among the staff.
“If we don’t extend, we put objective data aside and let rumor and innuendo rule the day,” declared Kaufman.
Sklar reiterated what counsel had advised him, that it is common practice for a superintendent to want to secure a two-year contract. Justicz said that if the committee waits until June ’09 to decide on a renewal and then decide against renewing, that would give Jefferson only one year to find another position. Board member Willie Wickman favored the vote at this point because it would say to Jefferson that the committee wants his expertise and leadership over the next few years, that there is benefit in continuity. Asked if he would withdraw his request for an extension, Jefferson said that he was asking for a vote at this time and that he would stand by that request. He added that there are things he has begun that he would like to see through to completion.
The other focus of the deliberation was Jefferson’s performance. Cheveralls asserted that he wanted to postpone the vote so that Jefferson could show everyone what he is really capable of, but he expressed some questions about Jefferson’s leadership. He criticized the review process by which Jefferson was evaluated as “flawed,” saying that Jefferson had allowed no paper trail and that only those who would speak favorably of Jefferson were interviewed. He said that Jefferson had shown no leadership that inspires and that when the going got tough Jefferson put the committee in front of the fire rather than taking responsibility himself. Wenger remarked that she feels there is a disconnect between the community and the School Committee: the community does not think Jefferson is doing as good a job as the School Committee thinks he is.
In defense of Jefferson’s performance, Wickman called him a strong leader who is doing an excellent job. She cited his work on the budget, his initiation of the strategic plan, and the Devens contract as evidence of his competence. Justicz presented a prepared statement in which she reflected on positive and negative aspects of Jefferson’s performance. She complimented his very real contributions: a transparent budget process, good hiring decisions, a cohesive administrative team, as well as Devens and the strategic plan. She acknowledged that there was a group unhappy with Jefferson’s performance and some morale problems at the elementary school caused by curriculum changes. But she said that these issues go beyond one person and asked whether, in fact, certain community members might be seizing on one person to blame for all the issues. She said that the community needs to heal but asked the difficult question about an early extension: “Do we risk angering some people or do we risk losing a good superintendent?”
Sklar defended the evaluation process, saying that more people had input than ever before. He pointed out that the School Committee, after many hours of discussion, had voted 5 to 0 in favor of the evaluation process.
“People changed their minds after the fact,” he said. “That’s not the way a committee works.”
Sklar said he thinks Jefferson is both an administrator and an educational leader and that he has resolved most of the areas in which the schools were found to be in noncompliance during a DOE audit of six years ago.
